I think what would be pretty interesting would be a "Guerrilla" option or insurgents. Such as say Vietcong or Mujahideen. If the next title includes a civilian population in the urban areas, they can blend in with the populous until ordered to attack perhaps? Include Technicals, which are just civilian vehicles that have been improvised for war and perhaps attach trees and brush to actual military vehicles like T-55's. High tech options are good, but low tech options could be fun, too.

Inzunza wrote:I think what would be pretty interesting would be a "Guerrilla" option or insurgents. Such as say Vietcong or Mujahideen. If the next title includes a civilian population in the urban areas, they can blend in with the populous until ordered to attack perhaps? Include Technicals, which are just civilian vehicles that have been improvised for war and perhaps attach trees and brush to actual military vehicles like T-55's. High tech options are good, but low tech options could be fun, too.

steppewolf wrote:No way, this is a game about mechanized warfare. With guerilla stuff you'd only transform it in something else, you'd change the nature of the game.

I like the idea of Guerrilla type tactics... it would make some countries more viable. Especially considering that it was part of some countries actual doctrine. Take Albania for example...

Inzunza wrote:I think what would be pretty interesting would be a "Guerrilla" option or insurgents. Such as say Vietcong or Mujahideen. If the next title includes a civilian population in the urban areas, they can blend in with the populous until ordered to attack perhaps? Include Technicals, which are just civilian vehicles that have been improvised for war and perhaps attach trees and brush to actual military vehicles like T-55's. High tech options are good, but low tech options could be fun, too.

steppewolf wrote:No way, this is a game about mechanized warfare. With guerilla stuff you'd only transform it in something else, you'd change the nature of the game.

I like the idea of Guerrilla type tactics... it would make some countries more viable. Especially considering that it was part of some countries actual doctrine. Take Albania for example...

Wargame can't simulate asymmetric warfare properly, especially if Eugen stick to their guns on all units having transports and coming in down dedicated reinforcement routes in a meeting engagement. In Wargame's 40 minute long meeting engagement in a limited area with points awarded for destruction of enemy units or conquest of strategic locations the conventional military cannot lose. It's far faster, it has unmatchable firepower advantages and the ways in which you can mitigate that advantage using the broken-to-hell stealth system would make the game into a boring attritional fight where guerilla infantry squads uncloak, kill something and disappear in an hail of HE.

There is an excellent brigade-level RTS somewhere in the concept of asymmetric warfare in the Cold War, but Wargame isn't it and never will be. Destroying the rest of the game just to see Albania and Vietnam begin to vaguely approach viability is a bad idea.

I'm hoping for it... It would feature strong militaries who fought out large scale conventional wars back in late CW. Well known scenarios would give additional advertisement to title. And in the end african maps are somewhat rare in videogames.

I'm hoping for it... It would feature strong militaries who fought out large scale conventional wars back in late CW. Well known scenarios would give additional advertisement to title. And in the end african maps are somewhat rare in videogames.

I really hope they move to South Asia, very very interesting scenarios here. Specially the 1971 Bangladeshi liberation war.

India will be in redfor with mostly soviet equipment and some home grown or licensed variants while Pakistan will have mostly US and UK hardware and they will be in bluefor.

As in historically during that Indo-Pakistani war US supported Pakistan and send elements of her 7th fleet as Task Force 74 to intimidate India led by carrier USS Enterprise while they also had three marine battalions on stand by to attack India on short notice. In response USSR in support of India send two groups of cruisers and destroyers with a nuclear submarine to train the US fleet.

So yeah an Interesting scenario and I know generally when people picture India they think bluefor but as generally in west eastern block is portrayed as "evil" comparatively, its no different in wargame series but cold war was never that simple, and now in current climate in west comparatively Pakistan is seen as "evil", so how could they be in good guys i.e. bluefor side. But going by the convention of bluefor and redfor in this scenario India must be in redfor and Pakistan bluefor.

P.S. If you want to see American hardware against British hardware, look at 1965 Indo-Pakistani war.

What they should not do is make a niche scenario and throw out a dozen nations until it has historical accuracy. You gotta learn from SD's mistakes too after all.

There should be more community oriented features.One example is WIC MP Interface which was ahead of it's time. Hell the entire main menu, which kinda pulled you into the WIC universe. RD's menu and universe is too "sterile".

World in Conflict had custom map contests, out of 5 or so maps players would vote for one. The winning map would become official. The map pool was expanded by 10 back then. A good way to keep the game rolling.

"Spike MR is more accurate I'll give you that but Konkurs has more range and isn't prototype" - Warchat™ July 2017"ALB added planes, RD added ships, WG4 will add Ekranoplans" - Warchat™ August 2017

fuser wrote:I really hope they move to South Asia, very very interesting scenarios here. Specially the 1971 Bangladeshi liberation war.

India will be in redfor with mostly soviet equipment and some home grown or licensed variants while Pakistan will have mostly US and UK hardware and they will be in bluefor.

With an early 90s setting, sure, even if I am another European setting advocate. I do however have worries about the viability of some nations. So far as I've found (and you can see the link to my research in my sig) Pakistan isn't really viable. I was going to launch a bit of an investigation into India when I had a bit of time but if you want to do the legwork that'd be great. There are a few old threads on India that you can dig up, you can do your own research and I and some others will happily pitch in with suggestions.

So yeah an Interesting scenario and I know generally when people picture India they think bluefor but as generally in west eastern block is portrayed as "evil" comparatively, its no different in wargame series but cold war was never that simple, and now in current climate in west comparatively Pakistan is seen as "evil", so how could they be in good guys i.e. bluefor side. But going by the convention of bluefor and redfor in this scenario India must be in redfor and Pakistan bluefor.

India is a natural REDFOR member, more so than half the people we're putting in REDFOR these days. The US was for Pakistan, India was against it. Easy peasy. We even have the Indian-Chinese conflicts in the Himalayas, although games where your vehicles can't drive onto the map and your helicopters can't hover are going to suck to play . I don't think there's a real perception that BLUFOR is universally the 'good guys', expanded out the BLUFOR list would include the South American Juntas and South Africa, all of whom make Pakistan look pretty cuddly.

P.S. If you want to see American hardware against British hardware, look at 1965 Indo-Pakistani war.